12-string Ric recommendation for Bassist

dean712 · Post by **dean712** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:07 pm

I am a full-time bass player, and I love my Ric basses (all 4 of them).

I also play a little bit of guitar, mostly for songwriting. I have a Martin D-1 acoustic and a Gibson LP Studio that I have used from time to time for songwriting. No Ric guitars yet, though. I am strictly a campfire-type guitarist, knowing the major chords and some others (ie. no illusions of being EVH anytime soon). The guitar in question would be for me and/or our band's guitarist to record with.

It has been a while since I have bought a Ric, and I am suffering GAS. I am thinking that a 12-string Ric would be a nice addition, especially with my band planning to enter the studio for our second CD this fall. I'm thinking that a 12-string could add sonic possibilities to our album.

My question for y'all is: which one should I be shopping for? From my initial research, it looks like a 360/12 is what I am looking for.

Are there any issues with stability/durability of the semi-hollowbodies? Are the necks of the different models radically different that I need to know of? Do the solidbody Ric 12's sound similar to the semi-hollow Ric 12's?

Sorry if these are dumb or recurring questions. Any help you can offer is appreciated!!

byu · Post by **byu** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:33 pm

I'm primarily a bass player as well but I'm playing more guitar these days. I have 5 Ric 12s & love them all. The necks on the 360 & 330 are the same but many people have problems with the narrow string spacing (I have no problem with it). If money's an issue go with a 330/12 or if you prefer the deluxe features, go with a 360/12. If the neck seems to narrow, try a 660 solid body. I have no experience with the solid body models so maybe some one else will weigh in on them.

Stability has never been an issue with me as I take care of my equipment.

One thing's for sure, you can't beat the sound. You'll wish you had it for your first CD and it'll certainly inspire your second.

Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Bill

lshaia · Post by **lshaia** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:00 am

Hey Dean, I have a 330/12 that you are welcome to try, drop me an e-mail. As more of a bass guy myself, I strongly suggest that you play one before buying something. I find the neck to be pretty narrow for all those strings, about 1/4" narrower (?) than my acoustic 12. It sounds great, though!

goldenoldie · Post by **goldenoldie** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:56 am

Lindsay, Good to hear from you. Hope you're not getting frustrated with that beautiful 330. Have you tried playing it exclusively over a period of time? Adjusting finger positions may help with chording.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:13 am

My own first experience with a Rick 12 was some years ago, with a 360-12.

My first Rick this time around is a new 660-12, purchased in December. I bought it because of the wider neck. It's a small guitar physically, but the sound it makes is incredible. I have slim fingers, so it's easy to play, but if you have larger fingers, it should be at least auditioned.

The 381/12V69 has an even wider neck, nearly 2" at the nut.

dean712 · Post by **dean712** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:00 pm

Thanks, guys. I knew you would be of help!

Lindsay, I will drop you a note.

wormdiet · Post by **wormdiet** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:55 pm

By the time you make the common mods to a 360 to get it more comfortable to play and easier to intonate, it will cost more than a 660. DO yourself a favor and at least try a 660 before you make the decision.

Paul - is the 381 a recent model ??? Why didn;t I know about this? The cosmetics & tone of a semi with a playable neck! Grr!

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:28 pm

The 381 has been with us since 1957, according to Rick's site. The current model designation, V69 indicates that it is presented in 1969 trim. It does have widest neck, RIC-O-SOUND, and ssemi-hollow body.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm

I have a new MB 381 6-string. It's in my opinion the most gorgeous of the contemporary Ricks. The Rossmeisel so-called "German-carved" body is a unique tie with Rick's historic past. The guitar for some reason looks big when it's just sitting there by itself, but next to a Gretsch 6120 or 22 it shrinks. The size is just right.

It is a top of the line guitar. It is beautiful in any color, and several large online dealers have them in stock, mostly in MG and JG.

expomick · Post by **expomick** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:37 pm

Agreed. My only Rick (so far) is a 381V69 6-string in JetGlo, 2003 model. While it has the widest neck of the bunch, it still feels slim in comparison to my Fender's. Maybe it's just my perception.

Geesh, my question for you, then, is how much smaller/thinner will I find a 330 or a 360? Like many people, that is the Rick I have my sights on next?

While my fingers are not that long (which, being a long-time bass player, meant trouble), my hands are not small.

Should I shy away from these models?

(and...for those keeping track...only 986 posts to go!)

leftyguitars · Post by **leftyguitars** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:40 pm

I too have a 381/12v69 and the neck on mine is 1 and 5/8 inches wide (exactly the same width as my 360/12). I am a bass player and can't play a standard C chord on the 381 (or 360) without catching the strings on either side with my finger. So I suggest that you try before you buy.

lshaia · Post by **lshaia** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:07 am

Hey, Tom, love your C63! I don't know if frustration is the right word, because I really like the guitar; let's just say that it fights me a bit. I have become accustomed to it enough that open chords are all clean, but anything up the neck is very challenging. Of course, my limited skills and practice schedule don't help.

FWIW I tried both the 330/12 and 360/12 and found that the 330 "felt" wider; some people attribute that to the fact that the 330 neck is unbound, I don't know. I wasn't interested in the 660 because I like the vibe of a semi hollow and, frankly, thought that the 660 would be too small to play comfortably. I would have had to order one to actually try it, which I wasn't going to do.

I don't want Dean or anyone else to be put off by anything I've said; it's a really nice, great sounding guitar that, for me at least, is just a bit harder to play. IMO any bass player interested in one of these would be very well served by finding one and trying it out first before either buying one OR giving up on it. Who knows, you might find that it's easier than you thought it would be.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:17 am

Dean, my big mistake here re: the 381V69. I wrote that e-mail giving the neck width from my office, with my guitar (which I play everyday!) at home. I went to an otherwise reliable Rickenbacker reference source, which said neck width at nut was 1.931.

(gee, didn't feel that wide...well, OK, they must be right)

So this AM I measured it. 1 5/8, same as a 330/360. Thanks, Peter, for actually doing the measuring.

So if you want wide, you've got the 660-12, with a tiny body.

wormdiet · Post by **wormdiet** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:23 am

"The 381 has been with us since 1957, according to Rick's site. The current model designation, V69 indicates that it is presented in 1969 trim. "

I was aware of the date of the 381 line, just curious about the wide neck, and wondering if your particular guitar was the product of a certain era. ut, tuns out to be a moot question.

kirbywilson · Post by **kirbywilson** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:48 am

Dean,

I'm primarily a bass player (4003, 4001). I own a 360/12 that I use for recording. If you get one, I would recommend that you also get the McGuinn DVD. I now tune my 360/12 down half a step (neck relief) and capo whenever necessary. It's interesting to see how McGuinn frets certain chords (narrow neck width), choosing to barre something rather than use an extra finger. I like the challenge of playing it myself, because the sound is angelic. I use it with a class A amp and a compression pedal.